alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Gazzetta ufficiale C 241A/26 l

| | ISSN 1977-0944 |
| --- | --- |
| Gazzetta ufficiale
  dell’Unione europea | C 241A |
| | |
| Edizione in lingua italiana | Comunicazioni e informazioni | 60° anno26 luglio 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0944

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell’Unione europea

C 241A

Edizione in lingua italiana

Comunicazioni e informazioni

60° anno26 luglio 2017

---

| Numero d'informazione | Sommario | pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rettifiche |
| 2017/C 241 A/01 | Rettifica dell'Ufficio europeo per la lotta antifrode (OLAF) — Pubblicazione di un posto vacante di direttore generale (grado AD 15) — Bruxelles — Assunzione di un agente temporaneo ai sensi dell’articolo 2, lettera a), del regime applicabile agli altri agenti — COM/2017/10373 ( GU C 204 A del 28.6.2017 ) | 1 |

Numero d'informazione

Sommario

pagina

Rettifiche

2017/C 241 A/01

Rettifica dell'Ufficio europeo per la lotta antifrode (OLAF) — Pubblicazione di un posto vacante di direttore generale (grado AD 15) — Bruxelles — Assunzione di un agente temporaneo ai sensi dell’articolo 2, lettera a), del regime applicabile agli altri agenti — COM/2017/10373 ( GU C 204 A del 28.6.2017 )

( GU C 204 A del 28.6.2017 )

1

---

| IT | |
| --- | --- |

IT

---

Rettifiche

| 26.7.2017 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea | CA 241/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2017

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea

CA 241/1

---

Rettifica dell'Ufficio europeo per la lotta antifrode (OLAF) — Pubblicazione di un posto vacante di direttore generale (grado AD 15) — Bruxelles — Assunzione di un agente temporaneo ai sensi dell’articolo 2, lettera a), del regime applicabile agli altri agenti — COM/2017/10373

(
  Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea C 204 A del 28 giugno 2017
  )

(2017/C 241 A/01)

Pagina 5, alla voce «Termine ultimo per l’iscrizione»:

anziché:«Il termine ultimo per l’iscrizione è il 27.7.2017. Le iscrizioni online saranno chiuse alle ore 12:00 (mezzogiorno), ora di Bruxelles.»,

leggasi:«Il termine ultimo per l’iscrizione è il 15 settembre 2017. Le iscrizioni online saranno chiuse alle ore 12:00 (mezzogiorno), ora di Bruxelles.»

---
Michael J. MALOUF v. Lisa EVANS

2017-CT-00374-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: October 30, 2018 Closed: January 17, 2019

Certiorari - Granted
Demetrius Andre COOPER Sr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1793

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 5, 2018

Demetrius Andre Cooper Sr., in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
1328.

#### Pendley Brick Company *v.*Hardwick & Company.

Levy and claim, from city court of Dalton — Judge Longley. June 25, 1908.

Argued November 10, 1908.- —

Decided May 4, 1909.

*W. G. Martin, G. N. King,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. E. Mann, F. K. McCutchen,*contra.

Powell, J.

1. "Whether an article of personalty- connected with or attached to realty becom.es a part of the realty, and therefore such a fixture that it can not be removed therefrom, depends upon the circumstances under which the article was placed upon the realty, the uses to which it is adapted, and the parties who are at issue as to whether such an article is realty or detachable personalty.” *Wolff*v. *Sampson,*123 *Ga.*402 (51 S. E. 335). Where it is doubtful, under all the circumstances, whether the article in question is personalty or is a fixture, the doubt is to be solved by the jury. *Smith*v. *Odum,*63 *Ga.*503; *Harrell*v. *Americus Refrigerating Co.,*92 *Ga.*443 (17 S. E. 623).

2. The charge of the court, when viewed as a whole, was free from error; certainly so as against the plaintiff in error.

3. The jury was authorized to find that the claim was filed for delay only. This court emphasizes its approval of the verdict in this respect, by assessing, as damages for bringing the case to this court for further delay, ten per cent, upon the amount found by the jury. *Clark*v. *Fee,*86 *Ga.*9 (12 S. E. 181). *Judgment affirmed, with damages.*
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Smart Online, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Dror Zoreff,
Interim Chief Executive Officer, certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/  Dror
      ZoreffDror
      ZoreffInterim
      Chief Executive OfficerApril
      15, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| 1.   | I have reviewedthis Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the yearended December 31, 2019 of MobileSmith, Inc.; |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: April 29,2020 | By:    | /s/ GlebMikhailov                                                  |   |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                 |   | GlebMikhailov                                                      |   |
|                 |   | Chief FinancialOfficer (Principal Financial and AccountingOfficer) |   |
|                 |   |                                                               |   |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6741
DAN OLIVER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus D. BRAXTON, Warden; T. FOWLKES, Ombudsman; H. CLARK, Operational Officer; RN TWEATY; RN RAY; DOCTOR WARREN; RN CASPER; KEELING, Assistant Warden; R. FLEMING, Regional Director; WRIGHT, of Records, Defendants - Appellees, and LIEUTENANT FALZT; OFFICER WILLIAMS; OFFICER DAVIDSON; SERGEANT MOSLEY; OFFICER PURDY; LIEUTENANT BARBOUR; LIEUTENANT ROSS; OFFICER WILSON; SERGEANT BERNARD; SERGEANT WHITE;OFFICER SUTTON; S. HARRISON, Director, Department of Corrections, Defendants.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-121-AM) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 30, 20012 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dan Oliver, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Dan Oliver appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Oliver v. Braxton , No. CA-01-121-AM (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 30, 2001; entered Apr. 2, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED